Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiHas the Arctic Melt Passed the Point of No Return?
Climate-change researchers have found that air temperatures in the region are higher than would be normally expected during the autumn because the increased melting of the summer Arctic sea ice is accumulating heat in the ocean. The phenomenon, known as Arctic amplification, was not expected to be seen for at least another 10 or 15 years and the findings will further raise concerns that the Arctic has already passed the climatic tipping-point towards ice-free summers, beyond which it may not recover.
![[The Beaufort Sea, just north of Alaska, where near-surface air temperatures are 7C higher than normal. (ALAMY)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/icemelt-1217.jpg "icemelt-1217.jpg")
The Arctic is considered one of the most sensitive regions in terms of climate
change and its transition to another climatic state will have a direct
impact on other parts of the northern hemisphere, as well more indirect
effects around the world.
Although researchers have documented a catastrophic loss of sea ice during the summer months over the past 20 years, they have not until now detected the definitive temperature signal that they could link with greenhouse-gas emissions.
However, in a study to be presented later today to the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco, scientists will show that Arctic amplification has been under way for the past five years, and it will continue to intensify Arctic warming for the foreseeable future.
Computer models of the global climate have for years suggested the Arctic will warm at a faster rate than the rest of the world due to Arctic amplification but many scientists believed this effect would only become measurable in the coming decades.
However, a study by scientists from the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) in Colorado has found that amplification is already showing up as a marked increase in surface air temperatures within the Arctic region during the autumn period, when the sea ice begins to reform after the summer melting period.
Julienne Stroeve, of the NSIDC, who led the study with her colleague Mark Serreze, said that autumn air temperatures this year and in recent years have been anomalously high. The Arctic Ocean warmed more than usual because heat from the sun was absorbed more easily by the dark areas of open water compared to the highly reflective surface of a frozen sea. "Autumn 2008 saw very strong surface temperature anomalies over the areas where the sea ice was lost," Dr Stroeve told The Independent ahead of her presentation today.
"The observed autumn warming that we've seen over the Arctic Ocean, not just this year but over the past five years or so, represents Arctic amplification, the notion that rises in surface air temperatures in response to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will be larger in the Arctic than elsewhere over the globe," she said. "The warming climate is leading to more open water in the Arctic Ocean. As these open water areas develop through spring and summer, they absorb most of the sun's energy, leading to ocean warming.
"In autumn, as the sun sets in the Arctic, most of the heat that was gained in the ocean during summer is released back to the atmosphere, acting to warm the atmosphere. It is this heat-release back to the atmosphere that gives us Arctic amplification."
Temperature readings for this October were significantly higher than normal across the entire Arctic region – between 3C and 5C above average – but some areas were dramatically higher. In the Beaufort Sea, north of Alaska, for instance, near-surface air temperatures were more than 7C higher than normal for this time of year. The scientists believe the only reasonable explanation for such high autumn readings is that the ocean heat accumulated during the summer because of the loss of sea ice is being released back into the atmosphere from the sea before winter sea ice has chance to reform.
"One of the reasons we focus on Arctic amplification is that it is a good test of greenhouse warming theory. Even our earliest climate models were telling us that we should see this Arctic amplification emerge as we lose the summer ice cover," Dr Stroeve said. "This is exactly what we are not starting to see in the observations. Simply put, it's a case of we hate to say we told you so, but we did," she added.
Computer models have also predicted totally ice-free summers in the Arctic by 2070, but many scientists now believe that the first ice-free summer could occur far earlier than this, perhaps within the next 20 years.
37 Comments so far
Show AllThermohaline current anybody?
The reason for the recent temperature drops is likely to be connected
to changes in the Thermohaline currents on the planet. This is presumed
to happen through dilution of the Oceans with molten fresh water. Vast
amounts of freshwater are contained in glaciers all over the world. Studies
of those glaciers over the last two decades show significant loss in ice mass.
Some glaciers disappeared entirely.
The reason why the Thermohaline current is not in the daily news is simple.
Its cycle time is approximately 1000 years. That is how long water needs to
be transported from Greenland to the Pacific and back. The only way the
cooling system of this planet works is through differences in salinity and
hence in the differences of the specific weight of the ocean waters. Without
the difference in salt content of the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean,
the temperature exchange between Pacific and Atlantic stops.
The so called 'Great Ocean Conveyor' is the primary 'Global Climate
Generator' in such ways, that the Global Climate follows the Thermohaline
current.
Almost two decades ago ice core drills started on the Greenland ice cap.
A European science team under participation of other nations was able to
extract the first ice cores. Even though there were significant problems, the
project went on for almost ten years. The result of the core drills showed
precise layering of weather patterns over thousands of years. At one point
there was a rapid increase in ice on the cap, identified as the last 'little ice
age'. Parallel core drills in the Atlantic Ocean sediments brought to light a
phenomenon involving tiny snails. The houses of those snails showed a
remarkable change connected to the temperature of the Atlantic Ocean.
Depending on the temperature of the water the snails would either grow
clockwise houses, or counter clockwise houses. The amount and
respectively the relationship between the two lead to the discovery, that
large amounts of freshwater had entered the Atlantic Ocean from the North
American Continent, where the Great Lakes are still 'left overs' of a huge
fresh water reservoir that had built up in the time following the warming
period after the last ice age. At one time glaciers on the East Coast of
North America could not contain the stored water masses anymore and a
huge flood of fresh water entered the Atlantic and led subsequently to
a lower salinity and hence to the still stand of the Great Ocean Conveyor.
As the result the Pacific Ocean over heated and the Atlantic Ocean cooled
down. The interesting part is the way the Thermohaline current changes its
status.
Through aforementioned core drills an alarming time line appeared. With
enough fresh water intrusion into the Atlantic, the Conveyor stopped in a
matter of weeks. As a result the global climate changed dramatically. In
order to restart the Thermohaline current, freshwater needs to be removed
from the Atlantic Ocean. The only way to do that is through condensation
and precipitation on the Northern land mass. Temperatures in the Northern
hemisphere would drop drastically and enable the freshwater to be stored
in the Arctic and as glaciers on mountains.
Global warming is foremost not a change to tropical conditions in Northern
latitudes, but a change into another ice age, as the fresh water needs to
leave the Atlantic in sufficient quantities. Models show that a halt of the
Thermohaline current would have catastrophic consequences for the
'wheat belt' of the planet, since the drop in medium temperatures would
make farming in North America almost impossible.
Information about all this is widely available in Europe. A little bit of
'googling' will produce vast amounts of data pertaining the Thermohaline
current.
My own models show, that with rising global temperatures the amount of
freshwater in the Atlantic increases, only to be 'violently' condensed and
precipitated again. Intense droughts will be followed by massive floods,
as the Thermohaline current is the 'buffer' for global climate. It prevents
extremes through even temperature distribution between Atlantic, Indian
and Pacific Ocean.
Makes sense?
May all Beings be blessed.
latest data shows ice increasing in Arctic, Antarctic and glaciers like Mont Blanc RECENTLY. This is giving water (Wind?) to those who don't believe in Global warming. It seems we actually may get up to 10 years of cooling due to huge amount of pollution in the air from China and India mostly (particles reflecting sunlight). Over 600 reputable scientists now say :there is no global warming: we are going into an ice age. Clearly this winter and last will help their case although a short trend is meaningless.
In 1979 prestigious Universities (Stanford for ex) said we were in the beginning of an ice age. SCIENCE is not sure until it's sure... That takes time.
What was Africa like in the middle ages? anyone knows?
What rubbish !! Arctic sea ice extent has just set the record for *least* extent this late in the season:
http://www.nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
Rickster:
Take a look at this url.
http://www.prairieturbines.com/index.htm
The new diesels meet all 50 state polution standards. They produce way less co2 than a gas engine. The reason for this is that they are so much more efficient than a gas engine. That is why you see all large hp requirements using a diesel engine.
As an example, take a look at a VW Jetta TDI. Up to 50 mpg, yet a fairly large car. On a per mile basis, way less co2 produced with a diesel. And with the new low sulfer fuels, not much for sulfer dioxide either.
Also, the particulates are down to almost zero. Just a much better way to go.
I hope you enjoy reading the wind thing from the farmers in Kansas. I plan to put up a tower if I can find the cash to do so. Where I live we are in an area 4-5 at 120ft, so the reliability is quit good. Florida power built a 132 megwatt windpowered field near me last year. They say the power output is virtually as reliable as a base station. I love watching the blades turn.
mx321:
It is a pleasure to read your posts. There is a lot of science going both ways on the global weather change issue. The main thing to remember is our weather has always been changing. To think that there is a static mean to weather is quit nieve to say the least.
One does have to be careful with green teck tho. Some of the manufacturing etc of green teck is worse than the burning of fossil fuels.
Our earth is blessed with abundant solar. I do think within 10 years we will have solar steam power plants growing by leaps and bounds. We are at a tipping point in energy production from oil/gas etc. While we are in a short term price decline, once the economy starts growing again, energy costs will once again skyrocket UNLESS we take conservation very seriously.
We should all be driving diesel powered cars here. The inherrent efficiency of diesel verses gas speaks for itself. That is one of the 1st steps that should be taken, or demanded. To do otherwise is very foolish. Just the switch to diesel transportation would result in a min 15% reduction in a per gallon usage.
That would be one of the fastest ways to start curbing co2 emmissions.
I am not nearly as worried about warming as I am about the ph of the oceans. That to me is the major concern of rising co2 levels. Temp wise, there has historically been a 800-1,000 year lag between co2 levels and temps.
So I look forward to the warming that should occur longterm unless the sun stays relatively dormant. IF the sun stays in the dormant cycle much longer, it will take a longgggggg time to recover the heat lost.
And that is more of a concern. For as we cool more, we burn more to stay warm. And as we burn more fuels, the ph of the oceans will continue on a poor trajectory.
I guess the green tech utopia I fantasize about is totally green-- and yes, I can be naive at times. Thank you for bringing additional points to my attention. Have a good evening.
CO2 levels I think could be brought under control by planting ten million trees a year for the next twenty years while we reduce CO2 emissions. Might take more than that but it could work. Trees are one of natures best carbon sinks in my understanding.
As far as the diesel fuel I was under the impression they produced more pollution not less. I think electric or hydrogen made using solar steam power plants is the fuel of the future for general transportation.
I've wondered if reflectors for solar steam power plants could be mounted on tops of houses. Solar cells sounds good in theory but I would think there would be a lot of hazardous waste in there production.
Wind generators are way over priced right now. No more than there is to them you should be able to buy just the wind generator for less than a thousand dollars. Heck there not much more than a DC motor with a propeller attached to it.
Rickster
All the hysteria about Arctic Ice melting is somewhat overblown.
Yes, you can point to one spot, yet if you go to the eastern Arctic Ice field, you will see that it grew last summer and had a very poor melt.
The Northwest Passage was sailed in 1907 I believe. And according to lore from my ancestors, it was sailed very often during the Medevial Warm Period.
The ice on Antarctica is actually growing.
All of the Arctic Ice could melt and the sea level would not rise. The reason for this is that it is not over land. So to equate Arctic melt with sea level rise is just plain foolish. IN fact, sea levels have gone down in the past 5 years. NO one knows for sure why, but it is fact.
When looking at temps in Alaska, one has to look at ocean currents. I can't recall the name of the currents, but they seem to do a shift every 13-15 years. They shifted 2 years ago, so I would expect the western Arctic ice to melt moreso for the next 10 years.
Co2 is a minor green house gas. Water Vapor is much much stronger than co2.
We do need to conserve fossil fuels tho. The ph of the oceans is not going in the right direction, and that is a concern.
As far as temps, we are still a ways away from the temps of the Medivial Warm Period. IF you think about it, mankind has always done much much better with warmer temps than colder temps. Areas of the world that are now arid deserts bloom from the increased rainfall. People that are starving now will be able to grow their food. That will be a huge boon for mankind as a whole.
The earths temp has been cooling for the past 10 years, and one can only hope that that cooling trend reverses. The cool summers and frigid winters of late are a blip in the long term trends, but the new record lows being established with increasing frequency are not something to be taken lightly.
Sig
And The Appalachian Mountain chain has passed the point of no return. Thanks to Presidebt Bush and THE COAL INDUSTRY, Appalachia is a toxic third world waste dump with a destroyed environment, inadequate standards of health care and high schools that are so old and outdated the teachers can't even power up the tools kids in Appalachia deserve to compete on a global scale, it's pure insanity !www.wisecountyissues.com
The answer to all this is exceeding simple.
EITHER WE STOP BURNING FOSSIL FUELS IMMEDIATELY, OR LIFE ON THIS PLANET WILL BE DRASTICALLY AND (FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES) IRREVOKABLY ALTERED. AND NOT FOR THE BETTER.
There really is nothing more to say.
The time for more talk is over.
The time for more theories is over.
The time to develop more formulas as to how we will do this and still keep the
current economic system in place, is over.
Either we stop burning fossil fuels now, or most of us will die.
The planet is already groaning under the weight of 6.5 billion. The least little upset---a volcano, a pandemic, a mini ice age, and wars for food and water will make financial and political problems about as relevant as a distant star.
Read about the reign of terror that gripped the south starting in 1877. People can become monsters instantly, proving that's all they really ever were anyway.
Who but monsters would starve civilians in Gaza or Afghanistan.
snydly
Hello.
Anyone seen the IPCC ice core data chart?
There's a version suitable for mass consumption in Gore's book, "An Inconv Truth".
We got to see it briefly in the movie, but to read it for deep info, one must see it printed.
I'm off to find it online. If anyone can help, that would be much appreciated.
Peace.
Up-to-date info on arctic ice at:
http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html
This is part of the National Snow and Ice Data Center at:
http://www.nsidc.org/
This is how far I got:
http://unfccc.int/ghg_data/items/3800.php
May all Beings be blessed. Specifically the weak and ill minded.
snydly
Here's another, although I didn't sort through the list of topics yet.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
The chart definitely shows cycles of 100ky+/-, upon which we are at the top of a temperature deviation upswing at about the level that the previous ones reversed. It makes for hours of fruitful conjecture and deduction.
Will this site take a graphic as a post?
>>>How about as an article?<<<
If I am not mistaken, that is the third article about 'global warming'
in a short period of time. Yet, the headline is still formulated as a
question. Some people really need to eat shit to find out how it
tastes. Let's just cling on to the method of putting facts into a
question format.
Are we really spending Trillions of dollars for wars and militarism?
Are Polar bears stressed out that there is no more ice?
Do we really need the Amazon Rain Forest to produce Oxygen?
Are bush/cheney really responsible for the mayhem on Nature
for the last eight years?
Does Depleted Uranium munition really have a half life of two
million years?
Will the Ocean levels really rise when all the Arctic and Antarctic
ice masses are molten?
Is it a problem when 4+ Millions tons Methane go atmospheric?
Will there be radiation when a nuclear power plant has a meltdown?
Are there any consequences when 75% of all life on Earth goes
extinct?
Will I still be free in a Fascist police state?
Will the people that are responsible for the utter and final mess we
are in held accountable?
Is it okay to lose all civil liberties?
Do we really need Habeus Corpus?
Will it make a difference when ocean life dies due to acidification?
Is life really about Being and not Having And Doing?
Do we really need a brain?
What we really need is nothing short of a Revolution French style.
Nothing else will suffice.
Unfortunately the same people that are necessary to bring about
change are sitting in oblivion and watching TV.
Maybe we should all meet up somewhere. It would be cool to meet
the only people with brains before we go down the gutter.
Well done America! Bringing the environmental holocaust to You,
wherever You are. Well probably not if You live on the moon.
May all Beings be blessed. Specifically the weak and ill minded.
Is Santa really your parents?
Great post!
The answer is yes. I don't even need to read the article. It passed no return in the early 2000's, but the evidence wasn't as obvious as it is now. As soon as I read 'open water over the north pole' I knew we were done.
The do-nothing rich morons will doubtless be calling 'global warming' a hoax even as their oceanside villas get flooded by new ocean levels.
It's ok because if they are rich we will rebuild their villa's inland on poor peoples property (blighted neighborhood you know) with a tax break for 'improving' the property. They will also get tax breaks on air and water purification equipment for their homes.
By the way, the concentrated pollutants will be released to wherever the poor go to die. No one will understand why the poor keep living in such bad places.
The poor are just stupid and lazy and make bad choices. This is a key part of the Reagan Revolution that will lead to economic growth and trickle down so that a rising tide lifts all boats.
Sorry, science isn't about proof; that is a skewed and, unfortunately common perception of how scientific method works. In reality, science works to develop explanations for phenomenon that are always bounded by uncertainty. The process of science operates by assembling evidence in an ongoing effort to reduce uncertainty.
That may sound a little strange, but in practice it works pretty well. Decreasing uncertainty is how we learned enough about electricity to give us the computers we're using, and it also has is how we've learned enough to know that climate change is something we should be very worried about.
With all the attention focused on the Arctic, it's strange that little is heard from the Antarctic. Occasionally we hear about it, but unless you're looking you don't see. The Antarctic is also melting, unlike the Arctic the volume of ice above ground is enough to sink quite a few cities if that continant melts. Why it's happening doesn't matter much anymore, the usa and other industrial countries aren't going to do anything about the issue until it happens. Kinda like drunk drivers who keep on driving until they're killed in an 'accident', and like the dd's they're going to take a lot of people with them when they finally go.
Antarctic sea ice increases despite warming http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14724-antarctic-sea-ice-increases-despite-warming.html
"The amount of sea ice around Antarctica has grown in recent Septembers in what could be an unusual side-effect of global warming, experts say."
"In the southern hemisphere winter, when emperor penguins huddle together against the biting cold, ice on the sea around Antarctica has been increasing since the late 1970s, perhaps because climate change means shifts in winds, sea currents or snowfall."
So much for global warming theory. Global warming is still just a theory. You know what a theory is don't you. Still we need to cut our pollution whether it's CO2 or others.
The Arctic is in retreat but it still is larger than the melt off it had in the thirty's and forties.
In the area of the country I live in our summers have been cooler than normal and our winters have been warmer than normal. If that due to global warming hell I like it. In the seventies we use to get 100 plus degree days for 2 to 3 months each summer. In the last ten years them number of days have been less than 2 to three weeks. A couple of years ago we never even broke a hundred.
In the eighties we were getting heavy snow falls through out the winter. I remember it happening when I was real young back in the sixties also. One winter in the eighties we had snow on the ground for ninety days one year. That just don't happen very often around here.
Las Vegas is covered in snow right now and New Orleans got a really good snow just a week or two ago. The southern hemisphere has just went through one of the coldest winters in the last fifty years.
I'm still not convinced that were not just in a cycle of natural variation.
Irregardless I support the development of green energy just because that is the right way to go.
Rickster
I am happy that you support green energy- I guess when all is said and done, that is what really matters and I hope that more people will share your perspective regardless of their beliefs surrounding global warming.
Yes, global warming is a theory and yes there are natural variations in climate and perhaps we are experiencing the effects of those variations in part. But it is also true that greenhouse gasses, particularly CO2, do allow more heat to remain within the earth's atmosphere. We know this because the greenhouse effect exists (and has existed for millions of years) regardless of human activity. It is vital to our survival, creating a sustainable environment on earth. There is no doubt that an increase in greenhouse gasses will result in a rise of temperatures. The question is not whether or not this will affect climate, but how quickly and to what extent.
Furthermore, observations on weather patterns and climate changes, in which a person compares 10 years from within their own lifetime does not mean much climatically speaking. Climatologists review trends over a more expansive course of time, determining their mean and comparing that to other blocks of time. There are articles that better explain why arctic temperatures will rise and more ice will melt and why the antarctic has been expected to remain pretty stable for the time being. The scientists that are reviewing CO2 and greenhouse gas (GHG) data are looking within the past thousand years. Their findings (if submitted in accordance with ethical scientific practices) are reviewed by numerous peers in the scientific community. Good scientists take science seriously, they are looking for truth and are not afraid to discredit a theory if sufficient evidence proves the findings to be false, misleading or lacking in adequate research.
I am not an alarmist and I do understand that there are many questions surrounding the issue of global warming-- but I tend to go with the majority of scientists on this one.
Whenever scientific information is presented to me, I like to consider what someone would have to gain by submitting this information. So, in this case, what do the scientists who warn against global warming have to gain by doing so? Other than contributing to the climate of fear (unintentionally I believe), I am unable to see a sinister motive behind the development of the theory of global warming.
Some have argued that scientists who support the theory are simply doing so in order to create a heightened state of fear in an effort to secure more funding. But I don't buy it. The data that supports global warming comes from a number of different scientific disciplines, and is not solely derived from climatologists. And even if it is true that some scientists aim to bolster their findings in order to gain funding, I believe they are the minority. I just don't believe that the bulk of the scientific community is willing to risk their reputation, abandon their ethics and line up behind a hoax in order to get funding. That is unless they are already receiving funding from a corporate sponsor or are the chairman of a board, like Frederick Seitz, for example-- but he was working to discredit the theory.
Others have said the global warming theory is an effort to promote nuclear energy and to limit the industrial capabilities of developing countries. Again-- I don't buy it. Perhaps the people with these interests will benefit from the exploitation of the theory, but I don't believe that they played a role in its generation. Any point may be exploited or manipulated in order to support another position. Admittedly, global warming has been the center of many sensationalist apocalyptic articles and certainly has been used by people or organizations who aim to advance their platform. But this is true of many current themes and events and does not negate the validity of the event itself.
Recognizing global warming, or even more simply, recognizing that our actions have an effect on our environment, would encourage the development of greener technologies, a beneficial bi-product no matter your position.
On the other hand, there is much to gain from the outright rejection of the global warming theory and there are many well-funded forces hard at work to dismiss the topic. Much of the argument against global warming has been in response to the Kyoto treaty and other efforts to curb emissions. A serious reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would drive a stake through the heart of several major industries who have thus far had to answer to virtually no one, environmentally speaking.
At the very least, I think we should err on the side of caution. We humans do not have the greatest environmental track-record. I think that the earth is too precious to play the devil's advocate just because we can. There is more evidence that supports global warming than not. If you support green technologies-- why? If CO2 and other GHG emissions don't necessarily have a damaging effect on the environment, like air, which is part of the atmosphere and in your opinion, can't be connected to a warmer climate than why throw the whole system in an upheaval? We should just burn away.
"The scientists that are reviewing CO2 and greenhouse gas (GHG) data are looking within the past thousand years."
There's data out there going back hundreds of thousands of years. Ice core data, ocean sediment data and in a few cases tree ring data. why do the CO2, GHG supporters limit them selfs to the last thousand years.
"but I tend to go with the majority of scientists on this one."
Well I tend to lean toward the majority opinion my self but the more I look in to it the more it seems that all were hearing about is the scientists that are supporting the CO2, GMG end of it. It's looking more like it about half and half to me, but I do have the tendency to try and find the other side of the coin.
I don't mean to look like I'm nit picking you, I just like to exchange and examine ideals.
"Whenever scientific information is presented to me, I like to consider what someone would have to gain by submitting this information."
I would hope that their only propose is to advance knowledge. That's the main reason I support continued research on man impact on our environment.
"Some have argued that scientists who support the theory are simply doing so in order to create a heightened state of fear in an effort to secure more funding."
I feel sometimes that is the case. I think some scientists do become so specialized in an opinion that they can't change it without overwhelming evidence.
"On the other hand, there is much to gain from the outright rejection of the global warming theory and there are many well-funded forces hard at work to dismiss the topic."
I can't see what there is to gain by outright rejection. A big part of science is collecting data forming a theory and trying to prove it right or wrong. I'm afraid there are well funded forces on both side of the issue.
"A serious reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would drive a stake through the heart of several major industries"
The funny thing about it is if these industries would go with the flow they would probably benefit far more than fighting it. In my observations of life change creates opportunity. I've always felt like boat rockers make the world go round.
"There is more evidence that supports global warming than not."
I'm not really arguing against global warming just trying to understand the real cause and attempting to make people look at both side of the coin.
"We should just burn away."
No we shouldn't just burn away. Oil in my opinion is two valuable to just burn. It has many uses besides fuel. Every thing we make should be made in such a way as we can reuse it as many times as we can. Waste is our enemy.
Rickster
Rickster-- I don't feel like you are nitpicking me-- I appreciate the exchange and welcome your perspective. After reading your second post and re-reading your first, I believe that we are actually on the same page.
I agree that scientists need to continue their research on man's impact on earth, objectively of course. They should never stop. And I too feel that some scientists do relentlessly hold on to their opinion in light of evidence that suggests otherwise, but I think those individuals will ultimately be weeded out of the discussion if enough evidence is presented that points to another explanation. Still, I believe you are right to consider this scenario when discussing global warming.
"I can't see what there is to gain by outright rejection. A big part of science is collecting data forming a theory and trying to prove it right or wrong. I'm afraid there are well funded forces on both side of the issue."
I was referring more to industry and government when I said that there is much to gain by outright rejection and was not referring so much to the scientists studying the issue. I don't see a gain. You don't see a gain. But I believe that Bush and others of his mindset see a big gain in dismissing the global warming issue and postponing a serious reduction of greenhouse gasses. I fear that the financial support that big industry can offer in terms of creating a campaign to diminish support for the theory is a real threat.
Add to that the reality that many people are not willing to consider all of the available information and upon hearing that there are doubts or flaws in regards to the theory surrounding human impact on global warming, are all too willing to just dismiss it entirely. I think protecting our environment is already an uphill battle in the US. So, while I understand the need to continue asking questions and the need to review the information presented to us with a discerning eye, I think we should be careful not to begin abandoning the theory when there is a large amount of data supporting it. The fact that the antarctic has more ice doesn't necessarily mean that global warming isn't happening or that it is not a result of human actions, but someone who is not investigating the matter further might just stop right there and say, "Nope- no global warming" and I think that is a dangerous reaction. (I'm not saying that's you)
It's clear from your posts that you care about the environment and that you recognize how we can have a positive or negative impact on our environment depending on our choice of actions. But many people do not make that connection and I guess I feel that those of us that do make the connection have a responsibility to choose our words carefully when addressing the global warming issue. So, when you said, "so much for global warming," I felt I needed to respond. You followed up that comment by saying that "we still need to cut our pollution," but for many people, a hint of dismissal surrounding the issue would allow them to ask- "why then-- why should we reduce emissions?"
"The funny thing about it is if these industries would go with the flow they would probably benefit far more than fighting it. In my observations of life change creates opportunity. I've always felt like boat rockers make the world go round."
I totally agree. Transitioning to greener technologies would set off a positive chain reaction involving further research and employment opportunities, a more conscientious public, no need for oil wars and ultimately, a better quality of life. I am very hopeful that we will achieve this. I think though, that many of the industries are rigid in their thinking and will break rather than bend.
"No we shouldn't just burn away. Oil in my opinion is two valuable to just burn. It has many uses besides fuel. Every thing we make should be made in such a way as we can reuse it as many times as we can. Waste is our enemy."
Again, I agree with you, especially about making things in such a way as to reuse them. I was being sarcastic when I said we should burn away. Sorry.
I apologize if you felt I was attacking you (I'm not sure if it came off that way). I may have let my passion get the better of me. Thank you for taking the time to respond to me.
Rickster469
I wish more people were as pleasurable to discuss issues with as you have shown to be. I know you were being sarcastic when you said we should burn away. There's others out there though that don't understand the use of sarcasm. I've already been told once today that I was going to ignored from now on. I was also called an idiot because I suggested it should be a government mandate that we plant tress in open areas of our highways. The guy thought I was talking about center medians. Go figure.
You never set a tone that you were attacking me so there's no need to apologize for that. Until we cross paths again, and we will if you post much on common dreams, have a good night.
Rickster
Thank you-- I hope you have a good night too.
"The scientists believe the only reasonable explanation"
In other words this has nothing to do with science (which involves PROOF) it's called something else, speculation by people who have no idea if they are right or wrong.
"The scientists believe the only reasonable explanation"-- after studying climate trends, examining various models, evaluating data...
Rejecting a "reasonable explanation" in light of compelling data is foolish and careless.
Besides-- we are talking about ice here-- it melts when in a warmer environment.
Maybe the sun isn't even a big gaseous exploding ball of fire. I mean, it looks like fire in pictures, it omits a certain amount of radiation, it's warmer during the day and its light will burn your skin if you let it. Hell, it can even cook things. But we've never touched it and we don't know 100% for sure where it came from-- so maybe the scientists "reasonable explanation" as to its many properties is just a speculation by people who have no idea if they are right or wrong.
Obviously you don't understand the scientific method. Science PROVES nothing, it merely disproves alternative, incorrect, hypotheses.
Actually, the Scientific Method does not DISPROVE theories either (and the use of the word "merely" is a double-sin). The Scientific Method as outlined by Karl Popper assigns a probability or likelihood as to the viability of a theory in explaining observable data.
This is ignorant thinking.
rolandw above (December 17th, 2008 3:54 pm) gives a good explanation of the Scientific Method.
it doesn't look good does it??????..................
and we are still burning fossil fuels.................
we deserve everything we're gonna get..................
But do the children deserve it?
Just one reason not to give up.
"All Nature's difference keeps all Nature's peace." Alexander Pope
Real science is too difficult for conservatives to get their heads around.
no, not too difficult, just with a different idea of whence (yes i actually said that) authority originates.
Progressives, believing humans to be good or at least with inherent potential to be good when given what they need as children, trust their own and each other’s inherent wisdom, while conservatives, believing people to be bad and only becoming good when properly disciplined by father figures in home, religion, government, business and other institutions, trust only wisdom from the father, and their own internalized wisdom from the father, not that which emanates from their own experience. Science doesn’t work that way, only religion, war and warlord business models, so we believe in science while they believe in god, the father, trial by ordeal, coercion and punishment.
If science, as it is, is democratic, the war on science is a war on democracy, and although they don't always make that clear, that is the conservative argument taken to its logical end. And since the roots of conservatism lie in things ungotten in childhood and not in rational adulthood ideas, there is no such thing as enough; no satisfying the need for more, and no end to the extremes that some people will go, in their unconsciousness, to satisfy that insatiable need. You can never get enough of the wrong thing. Denying the authority of science is just a symptom.
The question is, what do we do about that? Yell at them, or get them what they need?